Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
Thread Closed 
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
04-01-2014, 07:31 PM (This post was last modified: 04-01-2014 07:39 PM by ralphellis.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Neither were iconoclasts.
Nor does Genesis promote anything remotely approximating iconoclasm.

Abraham IS recorded as being an iconoclast who destroyed idols. Try reading the Koran (21:51 onwards) Not every religious book is the Book of Mormon you know.



(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Akhenaten destroyed statues dedicated to individuals he didn't want honored.

Actually, Pharaoh Akhenaton is credited with erasing the god-name and image of Amun from all over Upper Egypt, which is prima face evidence of iconoclasm. How do you not know that, McClellan?



(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  I wager you don't even have a good idea of what monotheism is.

Try mono and theos. Its not rocket science, McClellan.




(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  The English word "tortilla" is a borrowing from Spanish, but English is not a "daughter language" of Spanish.

And you call yourself a scholar or professor of languages? Jeez, McClellan, you know jack about languages. If you did know anything, you would know that English is not a DAUGHTER language of Spanish, it is a SISTER language - with the mother being Latin.

In the case of your 'tortilla' example, we have exactly the same word in English - it is called a 'tart' - (a 'tartilla' - do you get it now?) It comes from the Latin 'torta', meaning a 'flat cake'. So of course the English did not borrow 'tart' or 'tartilla' from the Spanish (which has had little influence over the English language) - we either inherited it direct from the Latin mother tongue or perhaps via the Germanic 'torte' (both of which have had extensive influences over the English language). And we have kept the original Latin pronunciation at least as well as the Spanish did, if not better.

In which case, English and Spanish ARE related - just like Egyptian and Hebrew are related. Spanish and English are SISTER languages (or perhaps half-sister languages).

So here is a supposed scholar who does not know what 'mythologies' means, and now he does not know that both Spanish and English are Latin-based languages with many commonalities between the two. Just what do you know, McClellan? How can you every investigate the links and commonalities between Egyptian and Hebrew if you cannot even grasp the links and commonalities between Spanish and English?





(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  >> "And the long faces and wide hips were displayed"
Funny that it's also how your average humans were displayed.

Sorry, McClellan, do YOU look like Akhenaton? Really? My apologies, I did not mean to poke fun about the afflicted.





(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  You're making am monstrous mockery of my profession.


No, McClellan, you are doing that yourself by uncritically believing everything your academic predecessors and peers have written. Try doing some original research, McClellan, instead of taking what others have said, hook-line-and-sinker.



Ralph Ellis
Find all posts by this user
04-01-2014, 07:40 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-01-2014 07:31 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  
(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Neither were iconoclasts.

Abraham IS recorded as being an iconoclast who destroyed idols. Try reading the Koran (21:51 onwards) Not every religious book is the Book of Mormon you know.



(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Akhenaten destroyed statues dedicated to individuals he didn't want honored.

Actually, Pharaoh Akhenaton is credited with erasing the god-name and image of Amun from all over Upper Egypt, which is prima face evidence of iconoclasm. How do you not know that, McClellan?



(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  I wager you don't even have a good idea of what monotheism is.

Try mono and theos. Its not rocket science, McClellan.




(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  The English word "tortilla" is a borrowing from Spanish, but English is not a "daughter language" of Spanish.

And you call yourself a scholar or professor of languages? Jeez, McClellan, you know jack about languages. If you did know anything, you would know that English is not a DAUGHTER language of Spanish, it is a SISTER language - with the mother being Latin.

In the case of your 'tortilla' example, we have exactly the same word in English - it is called a 'tart' - (a 'tartilla' - do you get it now?) It comes from the Latin 'torta', meaning a 'flat cake'. So of course the English did not borrow 'tart' or 'tartilla' from the Spanish (which has had little influence over the English language) - we either inherited it direct from the Latin mother tongue or perhaps via the Germanic 'torte' (both of which have had extensive influences over the English language). And we have kept the original Latin pronunciation at least as well as the Spanish did, if not better.

In which case, English and Spanish ARE related - just like Egyptian and Hebrew are related. Spanish and English are SISTER languages (or perhaps half-sister languages).

So here is a supposed scholar who does not know what 'mythologies' means, and now he does not know that both Spanish and English are Latin-based languages with many commonalities between the two. Just what do you know, McClellan? How can you every investigate the links and commonalities between Egyptian and Hebrew if you cannot even grasp the links and commonalities between Spanish and English?





(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  >> "And the long faces and wide hips were displayed"
Funny that it's also how your average humans were displayed.

Sorry, McClellan, do YOU look like Akhenaton? Really? My apologies, I did not mean to poke fun about the afflicted.





(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  You're making am monstrous mockery of my profession.


No, McClellan, you are doing that yourself by uncritically believing everything your academic predecessors and peers have written. Try doing some original research, McClellan, instead of taking what others have said, hook-line-and-sinker.



Ralph Ellis


English is a germanic language and does not have latin roots. Spanish is a romantic language and does have latin roots. They are not related in anyway. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?

(31-07-2014 04:37 PM)Luminon Wrote:  America is full of guns, but they're useless, because nobody has the courage to shoot an IRS agent in self-defense
Find all posts by this user
04-01-2014, 07:58 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  A body found in tomb K55 in the Valley of the Kings was genetically tested in 2010 and shown both to be the father of Tutankhamun and the son of Amenhotep III. It's also been dated to the time of the traditional time of Akhenaten's death, in the 17th year of his reign. Also, an inscription discovered 13 months ago puts Akhenaten in Amarna overseeing building projects right before his death.

Surely even you know that Zahi's identification of KV55 is widely disputed. Here is a mummy that has long been aged to 20 years old or so, that is suddenly reassessed as being 35 years of age when a dubious link with Akhenaton is desperately being made.

More importantly, the STR analysis of this mummy demonstrates that it is highly unlikely to be Akhenaton, because the alleles do not match with the stillborn foetuses of Tutankhamen. I will look out some better data, but this is a start:
http://www.kv64.info/2010/03/dna-shows-t...y-not.html

You are grasping at straws, if you think KV55 is Akhenaton. And you are very naive if you think the Amun priesthood would have allowed the despised Heretic Pharaoh to remain at peace in the Valley of the Kings. Do you understand anything about religion and politics? The most likely candidate for KV55 is Pharaoh Smenkhkare. But in this case, there is no evidence whatsoever for the death of Pharaoh Akhenaton at Amarna or Thebes, and you have not presented any evidence for this whatsoever.

And the reason that you cannot provide any evidence, is that Akhenaton and his brother TuthMoses (Aaron and Moses) left Amarna and were exiled to Avaris and beyond - taking their monotheistic religion and their Aton-Adon god with them, just as the biblical-type texts relate. Which is why the Tanakh uses the god-name Adon (Aton) in the singular for the Israelite god. The Israelites worshipped the Aton-god of Akhenaton, because they were the followers of Akhenaton.


Ralph Ellis
Find all posts by this user
04-01-2014, 08:12 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-01-2014 07:31 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Abraham IS recorded as being an iconoclast who destroyed idols.

In turn of the era pseudepigraphical literature, not in Genesis, although technically anti-idol polemic is not iconoclasm.

(04-01-2014 07:31 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Try reading the Koran (21:51 onwards) Not every religious book is the Book of Mormon you know.

I've read the Quran, and that nonanswer doesn't really do anything for you.

(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Actually, Pharaoh Akhenaton is credited with erasing the god-name and image of Amun from all over Upper Egypt, which is prima face evidence of iconoclasm.

What idiocy. It's no such thing. The fact that he erected icons of his own flatly precludes the entire notion of iconoclasm. You're confusing being anti-Amun with being iconoclastic.

(04-01-2014 07:31 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  How do you not know that, McClellan?

Yeah, save the junior high rhetoric. You know as well as everyone else here that you're miles out of your league.

(04-01-2014 07:31 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Try mono and theos. Its not rocket science, McClellan.

That's called the etymological fallacy, Ralph, and that's bush league. You don't even get to talk to me about monotheism until you read this, this, this, this, and this.

(04-01-2014 07:31 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  And you call yourself a scholar or professor of languages? Jeez, McClellan, you know jack about languages. If you did know anything, you would know that English is not a DAUGHTER language of Spanish, it is a SISTER language - with the mother being Latin.

Yes, I know. I was the one who pointed that out. It was to show that your appeal to borrowings as an indicator of linguistic descent is idiotic.

(04-01-2014 07:31 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  In the case of your 'tortilla' example, we have exactly the same word in English - it is called a 'tart' - (a 'tartilla' - do you get it now?)

No, tartilla and tortilla are not the exact same word. They are different words. One is borrowed directly from Spanish, and the other is descended from English's Latin roots.

(04-01-2014 07:31 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  So here is a supposed scholar who does not know what 'mythologies' means, and now he does not know that both Spanish and English are Latin-based languages with many commonalities between the two.

Are you even reading what I'm writing? Honestly, you're accusing me of accepting the exact thing that I'm rejecting.

(04-01-2014 07:31 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Just what do you know, McClellan? How can you every investigate the links and commonalities between Egyptian and Hebrew if you cannot even grasp the links and commonalities between Spanish and English?

Yo hablo espanol perfectamente, tonto, y no creo que tu puedas entender nada del idioma sin google. Yo vivi dos anos en sudamerica y conozco el idioma y la cultura mejor que nunca lo hara. Yo trabajo como traductor, culaso.

(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  Sorry, McClellan, do YOU look like Akhenaton? Really? My apologies, I did not mean to poke fun about the afflicted.

You misunderstand completely. That's how the average humans were represented in the art of the Amarna period.

(01-01-2014 03:51 PM)maklelan Wrote:  No, McClellan, you are doing that yourself by uncritically believing everything your academic predecessors and peers have written. Try doing some original research, McClellan, instead of taking what others have said, hook-line-and-sinker.

You have no clue whatsoever what my education has been, or what kind of relationship my research has to any of my predecessors. As an example of how clueless you are, my first master's thesis at the University of Oxford won the award for the best thesis of the year in the Jewish studies program. You can read it here. I'd be happy to explain it to you when you misunderstand and misrepresent even the most basic concepts within it.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
04-01-2014, 08:12 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-01-2014 07:40 PM)Revenant77x Wrote:  English is a germanic language and does not have latin roots. Spanish is a romantic language and does have latin roots. They are not related in anyway. You really have no idea what you are talking about do you?


Oh do me a favour. You spend 30 seconds on Wiki and you think English is a West Germanic language.

In reality 30% of English words are Latin-based, while another 30% are French-based. And since French is another Latin-based language we are already pushing some 45% of English words being Latin based. But since the Germanic languages also picked up a great deal of Latin, we also have Latin influences that have arrived through Dutch and German.

Thus we are pushing some 50% of English words having a Latin foundation. And you think English is West Germanic, just because Wiki says so?

Might I remind you that England spoke Latin for some 400 years, during the formative years when the language was evolving. So the Latin content we have in English is not simply the result of later Church influences, as some authorities like to maintain.


Ralph
Find all posts by this user
04-01-2014, 08:20 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-01-2014 07:58 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Surely even you know that Zahi's identification of KV55 is widely disputed. Here is a mummy that has long been aged to 20 years old or so, that is suddenly reassessed as being 35 years of age when a dubious link with Akhenaton is desperately being made.

None of that has any bearing whatsoever on the value of the genetic testing that was done. It's quite definitive, but it's also miles over your head, so I understand that you'll just continue to bark "Nu-uh!"

(04-01-2014 07:58 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  More importantly, the STR analysis of this mummy demonstrates that it is highly unlikely to be Akhenaton, because the alleles do not match with the stillborn foetuses of Tutankhamen. I will look out some better data, but this is a start:
http://www.kv64.info/2010/03/dna-shows-t...y-not.html

A non-refereed paper from an MA in mathematics who works as in management consulting? No, I think I'll stick to actual members of the academy. Your author just assumes that the two fetuses belong to Tutankhamun.

(04-01-2014 07:58 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  You are grasping at straws, if you think KV55 is Akhenaton.

Yeah, genetic test results are like that.

(04-01-2014 07:58 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  And you are very naive if you think the Amun priesthood would have allowed the despised Heretic Pharaoh to remain at peace in the Valley of the Kings.

You don't know much about Egypt, then. They were concerned with public perception and public memorializing inscriptions, not with underground tombs no one would ever see. Grave robbers destroyed tombs, not the king. Go study the culture before you start presuming to lecture me about it.

(04-01-2014 07:58 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Do you understand anything about religion and politics? The most likely candidate for KV55 is Pharaoh Smenkhkare. But in this case, there is no evidence whatsoever for the death of Pharaoh Akhenaton at Amarna or Thebes, and you have not presented any evidence for this whatsoever.

No, you just arbitrarily rejected because another hobbyist happens to agree with you.

(04-01-2014 07:58 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  And the reason that you cannot provide any evidence, is that Akhenaton and his brother TuthMoses (Aaron and Moses) left Amarna and were exiled to Avaris and beyond - taking their monotheistic religion and their Aton-Adon god with them, just as the biblical-type texts relate. Which is why the Tanakh uses the god-name Adon (Aton) in the singular for the Israelite god. The Israelites worshipped the Aton-god of Akhenaton, because they were the followers of Akhenaton.

Utter lunacy.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
04-01-2014, 08:28 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-01-2014 08:12 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Oh do me a favour. You spend 30 seconds on Wiki and you think English is a West Germanic language.

Oh my gosh.

(04-01-2014 08:12 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  In reality 30% of English words are Latin-based, while another 30% are French-based. And since French is another Latin-based language we are already pushing some 45% of English words being Latin based. But since the Germanic languages also picked up a great deal of Latin, we also have Latin influences that have arrived through Dutch and German.

Thus we are pushing some 50% of English words having a Latin foundation. And you think English is West Germanic, just because Wiki says so?

No, because the lexicon alone is not what determines language family. Old English derives from Proto-Germanic and predates the introduction of Latin through the Norman conquest. The grammatical and syntactical heritage comes from German, not Latin.

(04-01-2014 08:12 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Might I remind you that England spoke Latin for some 400 years, during the formative years when the language was evolving. So the Latin content we have in English is not simply the result of later Church influences, as some authorities like to maintain.

Here's a book you need to read.

My Blog
Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes maklelan's post
04-01-2014, 11:24 PM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-01-2014 08:12 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  Oh do me a favour. You spend 30 seconds on Wiki and you think English is a West Germanic language.

[Image: language.gif]

Old English is West Germanic. The Latin influence does not arrive until Middle English via French.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
[+] 1 user Likes Chippy's post
08-01-2014, 10:25 AM (This post was last modified: 08-01-2014 10:58 AM by ralphellis.)
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-01-2014 11:24 PM)Chippy Wrote:  Old English is West Germanic. The Latin influence does not arrive until Middle English via French.

Brilliant diagram (/sarc).

So the fact that the proto-English people spoke Latin for 400 years, and the English clergy spoke Latin for 1,500 years, has NOTHING to do with our current language. Its amazing what people will be suckered into.

And you can hardly assert that Germanic grammar trumps Latin vocabulary, as we don't exactly follow Germanic inflection or genders. A language with more than 50% Latin-based vocabulary and only 25% Germanic, can hardly be described as Germanic.

[Image: 500px-Origins_of_English_PieChart_2D.svg.png]




And besides, McClellan was wrong with the very word example he gave - 'tortilla' or 'tartilla'. He trumpeted a Spanish word that was not Spanish but Latin, and we in England probably received that same Latin word through the Germanic languages - thus proving that even German is partly Latin based and that your diagram is completely wrong. To make your diagram work, you need another 50 links drawn on it.


Ralph
Find all posts by this user
08-01-2014, 11:57 AM
RE: Water to Wine was a well-known trick jug
(04-01-2014 08:20 PM)maklelan Wrote:  
(04-01-2014 07:58 PM)ralphellis Wrote:  More importantly, the STR analysis of this mummy demonstrates that it is highly unlikely to be Akhenaton, because the alleles do not match with the stillborn foetuses of Tutankhamen. I will look out some better data, but this is a start:
http://www.kv64.info/2010/03/dna-shows-t...y-not.html

A non-refereed paper from an MA in mathematics who works as in management consulting? No, I think I'll stick to actual members of the academy. Your author just assumes that the two fetuses belong to Tutankhamun.


I think I shall stick to using my intelligence, instead of believing any old nonsense.

But how about Nature? Do you believe Nature at all?
Nature is not exactly enthusiastic about these results, stressing that this research was done for the cameras and therefore needed a 'GOOD' result, both for the film and for Zahi. The wrong technique was used. There was penty of room for contamination. And plenty of room for misinterpreted results, due to the close relationships of the Amarna royal family.
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110427/f...2404a.html

Then they compare the physiology of KV55 and Tutankhamen. Hmmm, in a family practicing incest? Yeah, sure, that's really going to show up differences and similarities.

There is nothing here to prove that KV55 is not Akhenaton's brother. And plenty of evidence that Tutankhamen was NOT the son of Akhenaton.

And I also see nothing in this paper to refute the earlier 20 - 25 years of age for KV55. Where is the evidence for adding another 10 -15 years of age? How was this achieved? Was this just for the cameras again?

As I said before, the mortal remains of Akhenaton are missing from the historical record. Why? Because he fled to Avaris and beyond, with Kiyah.




(04-01-2014 08:20 PM)maklelan Wrote:  You don't know much about Egypt, then. They were concerned with public perception and public memorializing inscriptions, not with underground tombs no one would ever see. Grave robbers destroyed tombs, not the king. Go study the culture before you start presuming to lecture me about it.

Again you have taken the academic party-line hook-line-and-sinker. Please engage brain before reading.

There was NO criminal tomb robbing in the Valley of the Kings. Do you really think that robbers can stroll into the Valley, and walk out with 5 tonne sarcophagi without anyone noticing, or being bothered? Or walk away with a king's ransom in gold in a swag-bag, while whistling softly?

So what really happened here? It is clear that the Sea People and then the later 21st and 22nd dynasty pharaohs at Tanis were exacting tribute from Thebes, to prevent further military attacks. Having no further assets to give there was a great deal of institutional robbing from the Valley, to pay off the notherners.



I really do think you need to take a good hard look at what you trust and believe. Science is not Mormonism, you don't believe every claim you read, just because an oracle with a PhD has spoken.


Ralph


P.S. A scholar of classics and language, are you not going to defend your 'totilla' claim? What, did you get that wrong too? Surprise, surprise. Why don't you embark on a great new thesis, proving that Hebrew is a daughter language of Egyptian. You might even win a prize and recognition…. ;-)


Ralph
Find all posts by this user
Thread Closed 
Forum Jump: